She's dedicated her life to increasing her own power and wealth through political manipulation and cronyism. If she wanted to dedicate her life to public service, she should have volunteered at a soup kitchen.

This is also why Brooks is hated by the very people he ostensibly represents, conservatives. According to the publicity David Brooks is the conservative voice on the Times editorial page. However, I cannot for the life of me think of a single conservative Brooks has supported (re: Michael Bloomberg, don't go there. Just don't.) Jeebus Crisp, he was even sold on Obama by the fucking crease in his trousers!

Public service, my aching ass. That's just bullshiter's weaseling for "professional politician". Professional politicians ought to be required to explain why they should not be hanged from the nearing lamppost.

Hillary is a tiresome example of a bullying, do-gooding, virtue flaunting high-school princess in a country where a large percentage of the people think that the best public service anyone can perform is to leave them alone. Hillary, like Obama, thinks there is virtue in butting into other people's business, to command them to be better (i.e., do what Hillary and Obama want them to do). Brooks's idea of public service is not many people's idea of public service.

Clinton’s unpopularity is akin to the unpopularity of a workaholic. Workaholism is a form of emotional self-estrangement. Workaholics are so consumed by their professional activities that their feelings don’t inform their most fundamental decisions. The professional role comes to dominate the personality and encroaches on the normal intimacies of the soul. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones once put it, whole cemeteries could be filled with the sad tombstone: “Born a man, died a doctor.”

At least in her public persona, Clinton gives off an exclusively professional vibe: industrious, calculated, goal-oriented, distrustful. It’s hard from the outside to have a sense of her as a person; she is a role.

This formal, career-oriented persona puts her in direct contrast with the mores of the social media age, which is intimate, personalist, revealing, trusting and vulnerable. It puts her in conflict with most people’s lived experience. Most Americans feel more vivid and alive outside the work experience than within. So of course to many she seems Machiavellian, crafty, power-oriented, untrustworthy.

There’s a larger lesson here, especially for people who have found a career and vocation that feels fulfilling. Even a socially good vocation can swallow you up and make you lose a sense of your own voice. Maybe it’s doubly important that people with fulfilling vocations develop, and be seen to develop, sanctuaries outside them: in play, solitude, family, faith, hobbies and leisure.

But then when the video cuts to a current interview with Clinton herself, the lighting is perfect, the setting is perfect, her costume is perfect. She looks less like a human being and more like an avatar from some corporate brand.

The best line from the piece. Brooks doesn't seem to realize that the culture has been trained, by the Democrat Media by the way, to despise anything perceived as inauthentic. The Democrat Media thought that people would associate Republican as inauthentic, because they thought the entire Republican Party was "What's the Matter with Kansas": Rubes voting against their self interest.

The Democrat Media, of which Brooks is an integral part, never thought they'd have a candidate more inauthentic than a Republican candidate.

Lining your pockets trading of [your husband's] public office is public service? I searched for a sign he was offering this sarcastically, in vain.

I think this demonstrates both why Brooks was the NYT choice of conservatives and why he's so unable to understand anyone. Politicians are people with a deep desire to control how others live. Why doi you think people get so excited when an outsider has a chance to break and disrupt the cartel?

Can Brooks be so dense as to be surprised? Here's why Clinton is so unpopular compared to a year ago:

1) She was popular a couple years ago because she just finished being Secretary of State, a job that is usually considered respected and nonpartisan. Excepting the Benghazi hearings, she wasn't really under attack for most of the last 8 years, until she started running for president again.

2) The Left had given her a pass for most of that time, but now that Bernie challenged her from the Left, many leftists realize what they never trusted about the Clintons--their Wall Street ties, scandals, and triangulation.

3) Under the pressure of a campaign, Hillary's weaknesses at the game shone through. Inability to give straight answers, pandering as blatant as saying "I'm pandering to you right now", and weak responses to charges helped knock down her numbers. Essentially, she's confirming to a new generation of voters what the last generation didn't like about her, and the free pass is over.

4) Being in public service for so long makes people grow tired of you, and it's particularly damning if you don't have much in the way of accomplishments. Worse still if you have blunders and did not seem to learn from them.

Anyone who marveled at her high numbers two years ago should have expected this.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Ok, but why is that unfortunate? Also, he's not really known for golfing like Obama is known for his various hobbies. Unless I've missed a lot of coverage of Trump's golfing, which is a distinct possibility.

Mr. Brooks is simply doing his job. He is advancing the new media narrative that Hillary is a wonderful people and you would love her if you knew her personally. Her polling negatives don't reflect the real Hillary, who is kind and personable.

I've heard the narrative above at least 4 times in the last couple of days.

So is this a prank? Because it is difficult believe that anyone could be so oblivious. His ignorance is breathtaking, very much to the point that I would have to wonder if he is well. I am completely serious about that. Someone better call him and see if he is okay. Damn.

"I read the whole thing.So is this a prank? Because it is difficult believe that anyone could be so oblivious. His ignorance is breathtaking, very much to the point that I would have to wonder if he is well. I am completely serious about that. Someone better call him and see if he is okay. Damn."I felt the same way. This is the NYT conservative voice? Entirely out of touch. Millions of Bernie Sanders supporters think Clinton is a two-faced corrupt corporate pawn, and Brooks can only come up with that she works too hard?

The bit you posted is an attempt to make excuses for her lack of charisma, being claimed to be the unfortunate side effect of her hidden virtues. If that sort of rationalization is intelligent - well, it is certainly something that can be done well or badly. Some sorts of minds are vulnerable to such rhetorical maneuvers no doubt.

3. The case can be made that she and Bill used her public service not to serve the public, but to acquire this enormous, breathtaking wealth. (See, Marcos, Imelda, Philipines, 1980s; See Peron, Evita, Argentina, 1950s)

4. College graduates (a big chunk of voters) are feelin' the big hurt. Yes, they have been indoctrinated with liberal utoptian ideas. Win for the Democrats. But $150,000 debt with minimal job prospects, save for barrista servers at Starbucks, is not a good life plan. So, they are understandably upset at someone.

5. Brooks and other NYTimes writers are far removed from the actual playing field. They don't mingle with folks from Staten Island. They don't mingle with folks in Middletown, NY. They have no idea of the daily struggles of the blue collar working class, nor the post-college professional class.

6. In the real world, nobody is worried about transgender bathroom rights or changing the traditional men and women restroom signage. That's for the elites -- like Brooks - with too much time on their hands.

7. Hillary has been exposed as a greedy multi-millionaire, using her political career to acquire massive amounts of wealth, while imposing stifling left-wing, big government policies on the rest of us. Here comes the new boss -- same as the old boss.

8. A large chunk of voters know this. A large chunk of Democrat voters are finding this out.

Leaving aside her hijinks of the 20th century, even the first decade of this century, still leaves me with the image of her standing by the caskets of the Benghazi dead, lying to their families. You will see some of those family members on stage with Mr. Trump, I am guessing.

Brooks is an employee of a political weapon system. It isn't surprising that he backs the political faction his employers support, for pay. The problem here, and a lot of the time over the last decade, is that he seems to subvert himself by appearing TOO dense. There are clever ways to do this and there are, well, far too obviously stupid ways to do this. I suspect that our Mr. Brooks may not have his heart entirely in this current project.

Hillary is not liked because she's so unlikable. Maybe it's because she's a liar. Maybe it's because she's a grifter. Maybe it's because of the way she treated the women her husband assaulted, molested, raped, etc.

Maybe David Brooks doesn't understand because he doesn't care about the lying, the grifting, or the vicious campaigns she's wages against Bill's victim.

The public likes someone who's served their shared community for an extended period of time--teacher at the local school, volunteer firefighter, Boy Scout leader, etc. Not someone like Clinton who doesn't appear to have an actual home to serve (Illinois? Arkansas? New York?) and who at any rate has, to anyone who is not 150% in the tank for her already, spent her career enriching and serving HERSELF.

Public service, my aching ass. That's just bullshiter's weaseling for "professional politician". Professional politicians ought to be required to explain why they should not be hanged from the nearing lamppost.

Daily Mail has an email from the morning after the attack as word was getting out that the Libyans had confirmed that Ambassador Stevens was dead.

Hillary sends a email to Cheryl Mills and others asking whether they should announce the death. (this at 11:39 PM Eastern time). The email is captioned "Re: Chris Smith."

1. Hillary did not remember the name of "her close friend" Ambassador what's-his-name.2. She had to ask a bunch of aides what to do rather than suggest a plan of action.3. She's at home preparing to go to bed and the aides are (presumably) in the office and on the case.4. Obama not copied on email and no emails between Hilary and Obama that night released or redacted.5. Do you suppose we will ever learn where Obama was and what he did?

Apparently David Brooks can look at a photograph of Hillary Clinton without feeling an immediate, visceral revulsion and loathing, coupled with horror at the prospect of another Clinton Presidency. Amazing.

Hillary believes in nothing. She is bought and paid for by the David Brooks' of the world. She is a manifestation of the plutocratic ideals of the muddled left and right. Even above wealth, this a group with utter contempt for the lower classes.

Could it be the public doesn't like their politicians cashing in with $150,000 speeches to various interest groups? Or possibly having taken a position on all sides of an issue, like gay marriage? Maybe you need to work a little more on getting out into that part of America that you elites show so much disdain for.

There's something to this "public servant" idea--when we think of teachers, cops or really any regular government employee who works for years for modest pay (in exchange for decent benefits and sometimes better job security) most people do see that as a positive (unless of course you oppose whatever agency the person is working for, but then it's less about the employee and more about who they serve). The "lifelong public servants" I know are decent people in that respect.

But when we see a politician who somehow got inexplicably rich while supposedly being a "public servant" (even considering all the perks of the office, like free travel) we don't buy it. We don't give Senators and First Ladies some special credit because their "official" salary (still pretty high) is below what they'd earn if they went to work for a lobbyist, particularly when they became millionaires anyway--and for reasons that don't add up.

And for Hillary, her long "public service record" hurts her when people consider how little she accomplished.

Brooks believes the liberal trope that intentions are all that matters...so if you do "public service" you must be likeable, even if the service you do is not what people want and turns out disastrously, and you are considered creepy.

She has certainly dedicated herself to power, if not public service. You want to serve the public, Queen Cacklepants? Stop trying to take away things from us--whether for our good or your good.

Loyal, docile servant of the Plantation that he is, "Uncle Dave" should have read the late Christopher Hitchens on Hillary's tireless devotion to public service:

"I’ve feared it [and inevitable Hillary presidency] for a long time, and there’s something horrible and undefeatable about people who have no life except the worship of power. . . . people who don’t want the meeting to end, the people who just are unstoppable, who only have one focus, no humanity, no character, nothing but the worship of money and power. They win in the end. "

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web column named the phenomenon of publicly reversing cause and effect the "Butterfield Effect" after ace news reporter Fox Butterfield.

It was Butterfield who famously reversed cause and effect in asking why so many criminals were in prison after passage of draconian sentencing reforms, "despite" the crime rate recently dropping!

Hillary has "dedicated herself" not so much to public service but to public sector self-enrichment through obvious corruption. "Despite" this lifetime of dedication, she is disliked. Brooks even uses the correct phraseology of the Butterfield effect, making me think he is laughing at his own joke as he makes it. Or he is just that stupid.

This will surely make Taranto's online Best of the Web under the "Fox Butterfield, Where Are You?" tagline.

Wow, this is pathetic even by Brooks' frog-level standards. Hillary is the most thoroughly unlikable politician in the history of the republic. A world class, habitual liar, who, with her lecherous, shameless, & lying HINO, are the most corrupt first couple in the history of the republic. She is not just dis-liked, she is repulsive.

"Last week, Hillary Clinton’s campaign released her most recent personal financial disclosure, detailing ways in which she and her husband earned money in 2015. Most of their income came from book royalties and giving paid speeches. Bill Clinton, for example, gave a speech to the National Association of Manufacturers in March 2015, being paid $325,000 for his time."

In related news, it turns out the Clinton Foundation received a $100 million donation from a Canadian firm related to "blood diamonds" and "blood minerals". Maybe that's why she's so unliked, because she will take money from anyone.

I guess it is just an amazing coincident that nowadays every "public servant" become rich after his government service comes to an end. The left just loves their euphemisms. Pro-abortion becomes pro-choice, illegal alien becomes undocumented worker, and profession politician becomes public servant. These are just a few of the examples of newspeak that the left uses to attempt to change the negative connotation of a term.

coupe said... No one dedicates themselves to public service and puts away $200 million a month.

Someone needs to get some oxygen to Brooks. It sounds bad over there.

If the Clinton's can show how many millions they donate to society, I will kiss her feet and let her lick my hand.5/24/16, 2:40 PM

Sorry, even if she did that, it would not "salvage" her as what she has / is doing is stealing from you and me and either hording her ill gotten gain or using it to spread her ideology. Yes, she has / is stealing from you and I. If she is "collecting" all of this money, it comes at a price. She is either directly or indirectly helping her "friends". This help is not without a cost. Someone somewhere is paying a higher price for something as a result of her actions. At the extreme, they are paying for her "collection plate" with their lives. Best case, we are having our tax money wasted on her supporting her "friends". I don't appreciate her financing her "good works" by picking my pocket.

"Public service"- $250, 000 speaking fees, a charitable foundation established to launder kickbacks and bribes, national office used for personal aggrandizement... We the people have certainly been served by this filthy thief.

As a "public servant" she's all (as my old drill sarge would say) "all a#@holes and elbows" when snarfing in the public trough. And that's when she was on the gubmint payroll. All of which qualfies as "you ain't seen nothing yet" when she was no longer on the public payroll but simply selling pieces of herself with the buyer anticipating access to her when she got back on the public payroll.

Now as they used to say Mr. Brooks, you expect a little honest graft from politicians. That's what they do. But the old adage that pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered is coming in to play here. Hillary was a hog--both inside and outside government. It's coming back to bite her. Bad enough to lose to a "charming light skinned colored guy who can speak English when has to" [Joe Biden's description of Obama] but now she's going to lose to a circus clown who wears a wig made out of a dead muskrat. Ah the horror of it all.

FWIW, I thought that David Brooks was no longer the House Conservative, that role being ceded to Ross Douthat (who actually makes a lot of sense most of the time). [Aside: I discovered last week that Nicholas Kristof's actual residence -- whenever he's not somewhere else, which is pretty much all the time) is in Yamhill, OR. Not that far from me, actually.]

I am distressed by the cynicism and distrust that has been expressed towards Hillary. Am I the only one here who thinks that she is a sweet, old lady who would like nothing more than to to be left alone to shower love on her new grandchild.. But instead her profound sense of duty pushes her forward, even in these advanced years, to once again serve the public weal with her wisdom and experience. This is a woman who gave up a promising career as a commodities trader to be the First Lady of Akansas. She routinely charges a hundred thousand dollars for a speech but she has not yet charged a single penny for any of her campaign appearances. How much more does she have to do to convince the electorate of her honesty and sincerity?

Hey, I got it! When Brooks says 'i don't understand,' he's doing that thing that Althouse does when she pretends not to understand the transparent antics of the Left. I guess 'bullshitting' is too Trumpily plainspoken and accurate, so help a brother out with some euphemisms.

Hillary believes in nothing. She is bought and paid for by the David Brooks' of the world. She is a manifestation of the plutocratic ideals of the muddled left and right. Even above wealth, this a group with utter contempt for the lower classes.

There really is profound cognitive impairment among the pundit class when it comes to understanding the public's distaste for lying and for liars. If you wanted to stump the loser and freeze him in his tracks, just ask him to name a single stance Hillary ever held that she didn't find a way to reverse course on completely. These people simply have the wrong instincts for identifying public leadership, they've been bought out, they've hobnobbed, they have no idea what the public actually want, need, say, feel, think and therefore prefer in the POTUS. Not a clue at all.

I am actually a gov't employed civil servant working at a state historical site. My colleagues and I regularly give talks to local civic groups and such-like, mostly after work hours. We are forbidden to accept any gratuities. We must also pay 'fair market value' for any food, drink, or plaque we enjoy or accept to the hosting entity. There is a level of 'public service' that is quite stratified as to perquisites and responsibility.

Selfless public servant. Which is why she fired the soulless public servants at the White House Travel Office, when they came into office, and stole all the furniture and art work from the White House when they left. Becauses they are selfless.

Maybe the erudite Brooks Can explain how Bill Clinton can objectify, kiss, fondle, grope,assault,and rape multiple women, and still be considered a womans advocate.

I've known David Brooks personally, dined with him and worked with him, and I can say that he's a very personable, funny fellow. But his comment about not understanding why people loathe Hillary! is another in a long series of myopic, even moronic statements. Only to a regular reader of the NY Times would he seem conservative or even middle of the road.

My older daughter likes David Brooks. She thinks he's 'nice'. I keep showing her his true colors but she keeps sending me his editorials. At least both of my daughters had the good sense to vote Trump in today's primary here in WA.

Hillary's 'public service' only consist of enriching herself and her friends. She has ZERO accomplishments as Senator and zero accomplishments as Secretary of state. In fact she has many disasters to her credit.

She has ZERO accomplishments as Senator and zero accomplishments as Secretary of state

Not true, Obama was not going to give the order to kill bin Laden and this was the one time her thirst for blood worked out in the service of the United States. Of course, if she made that argument, she would be pilloried by her 'base'.

The problem with her as Secretary of State is not that she didn't have any accomplishments, th she did. The problem is that her accomplshments tended to be negative, no where more evident than what happened to Lybia under her watch. It remains a failed state, after the US backed opposition took out long time strongman Kadaffi. He had been essentially neutralized as a terrorism threat by GW Bush, who essentially made clear to him that Lybia was next on the list after Afghanistan and Iraq, if he didn't mend his ways. He did, and as a result, was left alone, until, apparently Clnton crony and hatchet man turned influence peddler Sydny "Sid Vicious" Blumenthal got a consulting contract from a company wanting to sell security in a post-Kadaffi Lybia. Ultimately, it appears that he was feeding her as much maybe of her intelligence about Lybia as she was getting from our intelligence community. In one notable case, at least, he was able to feed her classified information within hours of its original dissemination. Blumenthal is, of course, the guy whom Hillary wanted working for her, but the Obama Administration wouldn't let her hire because of how he had attacked Obama during the fight for the nomination. So, instead, he was hired by the Clinton Foundation, as well as getting other consulting gigs on the side. With that start, it wasn't surprising that the Arab Spring moved next door into Egypt, resulting in the Muslim Brotherhood taking bloody control there, esp with the parents of Hillary's closest personal aide, Huma Abedin, having been leaders in that very same organization. In order to do this, long time US ally, and Israeli non-enemy, Hosni Moberrick was pushed out and put in prison. Not surprisingly, Syria also went up into flames next, resulting in ISIS, genocide, and the flood of refugees into Europe and the US that we are still seeing and fighting today. Of course, there was also her Russian reset, that quickly evolved into their takeover of the Crimea from the Ukraine, and a surging China. So, you can't really say that she didn't have any accomplishments, but rather through her graft and feckless incompetence, the world was a much more dangerous place when she left office.

Lazy people love workaholics. We sit around while they put all this work in. I'm always telling Althouse, hey, take a day off. She never does. That's because she loves what she does. Everybody admires an Iron Horse.

When Hillary is running around the world, wearing her damn scrunchies and not taking a shower, I'd say to myself, "hey, at least she's trying hard." But the thing is, she was a horrible boss. Nobody who works under her likes Hillary Clinton. Except for Huma, the clone woman who likes Hillary so much she married a man just like Bill. And then she was displeased!

You know you're a bad boss when you screw up and four of your employees die, and your reaction is, "I need to blame other people." And you don't blame the people who killed them! I mean, I could see blaming the people who killed them. That's what I would do. Damn if I would blame myself. But not only did Hillary Clinton not blame herself (which is how you fix your screw-ups), she didn't even blame the people who killed them. She picked some innocent guy at random and framed him for the crime! And David Brooks, the "Republican" for the New York Times, is wondering why people do not like Hillary Clinton.

Anyway, it's obvious that David Brooks is thinking about voting for Hillary Clinton. It's the pants! No, wait. She's a public servant! And the way his brain works, he's trying to figure out why he likes Hillary and all these other Republicans don't.

I fear the day that David Brooks realizes he has a liberal in his closet, and he's been repressing this liberal for decades. Oh my God. When that liberal escapes? Look out world.

Politician who bitches about and threatens 'the wealthy', while making more PER SPEECH(to the same people she's accusing of being crooked and uncaring, etc.) than the average family makes in three-four years.

Rhythm and Balls said... "These people have no shame. One day it won't be illegal to shoot them dead."

Fen - I like it - Let's adopt your last two sentences as Fen's Law #2.

Ok. But not before it's made illegal for your priest to molest children.

5/24/16, 6:50 PM

Done! That was easy! RandB, you do understand that it currently is illegal for anyone, priests included, to molest children, right? Like it is currently a crime (and has been for some time, here in America) and those that have been convicted have been held to account, right? So, we are all good on Fen's Law #2?

Speaking of speeches,'There's also the matter of Hillary's speaking fees. In just the two years between leaving the Obama administration and launching her bid for the presidency, she made nearly $22 million from speeches. Right after her service to Obama, Hillary Clinton began giving one to two speeches a month at around $225,000 or more per speech. Who wanted to hear Hillary speak? Lots of financial services companies, including Deutsche Bank, UBS, and Fidelity Investments. Goldman Sachs even hired her to speak in South Carolina in June of 2013, and then again in New York and Arizona that October. Her clients included major investors in government projects, like TD Bank, which had major investments in the Keystone Pipeline.'http://theweek.com/articles/625896/why-crooked-hillary-likely-stick

You know, if Gary Johnson was running in the Republican primary, David Brooks would be having an orgasm. "Gary Johnson!" If William Weld was running in the Republican primary, David Brooks would be having two orgasms. "William Weld!!"

But they are not running in the Republican primary. They are running in the Libertarian primary. So David Brooks could be doing the world a big favor by introducing these men to his readers. And by suggesting that we might consider voting for them.

Instead David Brooks is wasting his valuable(?) NYT opinion op-ed space by trying to get his Republican readers to vote for Hillary. She's a workaholic!

David Brooks: Eunuch extraordinaire, peddler of sanctimony and completely and utterly blind to the world that extends 5 feet beyond his Gucci loafers. Although Jewish, Brooks epitomizes the white bread Episcopalian observer of the type who delivers safe opinions to those who are able to swallow only safe opinions as they nod in placid agreement at such deep and salient thoughts. Imagine going into battle with such an emasculated type. Do you leave it behind as fodder for the enemy, or do you try to save it because it bears a slight resemblance to your tribe. What a decision!